Dog Training’s Latest Buzzword – “Balance”

Go to your favorite search engine and type in “balanced dog training” and you will get pages and pages of results. It seems like everyone and their neighbour is in a hurry to offer you a “balanced” approach to working with your dog.

And why not? It’s an attractive term. If you aren’t using a balanced approach to training your dog, does that mean you are using an “unbalanced” method? Heaven forbid!

I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the rapid spread of “balanced” dog training and “balanced” dog trainers has coincided with the amazing popularity of TV dog trainer Cesar Millan of The Dog Whisperer. Millan has made something of a career preaching about “balance” in relationships between humans and dogs.

It’s no surprise that other dog trainers would seek to use Millan’s terminology and popularity to promote their own services. But the term “balance” seems pretty fuzzy and undefined and, as we will see, can mean different things to different people. Even “balanced” trainers on the web define the term differently.

Perhaps we should start with Cesar Millan. What does The Dog Whisperer consider “balance” to be? In an interview with USA Today, Millan defines “balance” this way: “The one who is in control of the family is the leader, or the dominant one, or the alpha, or it’s just a matter of a word. The state of mind is the same. The rest of the pack lives in a follower state of mind”. Millan goes on to say, “In their [dogs’] world, it’s positions within the pack. So, because there is a clear understanding (that) just one that is giving direction, it’s a balanced relationship.”

I decided to take a random sampling of the most popular results in my favourite search engines to see how trainers who call themselves “Balanced Trainers” define term “balance”. I was pretty surprised by the results. Most of the sites have lengthy descriptions of their “balanced” training methods and some even try to invoke operant conditioning terminology and do it inaccurately.

Here’s a small sampling of what I found:

Shute Balanced Dog Training: “Jason’s methods balance positive and negative reinforcement which promotes conscious decision-making from the dog and will ensure that your dog will respond to your first command anywhere, everywhere and all the time.” NOTE: Negative reinforcement, as defined in operant conditioning, means to REMOVE something unpleasant or unwanted in order to INCREASE a desired behaviour. The website does not mention how the unpleasant stimulus is applied in their method nor how its removal improves behaviour.

K9 Balance Training: “Finding the balance is the most effective way to train. You do correct for unwanted behaviours but you always do so calmly, you are never yelling or being angry or frustrated while doing so. You do reward for the good behaviours as well preferably with praise or toy and only sometimes food – the food must only be a reward and not a lure. This is all about being the pack leader and teaching them the best way they understand – the same way they teach each other“

Precision K9: “The main elements in balanced training are negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement. Dogs live for the moment, so both reward and correction must be for the moment, too.” NOTE: Again, Negative Reinforcement is incorrectly defined as a “correction”. In operant conditioning terms, a “correction” would be positive punishment — the addition of an unpleasant stimulus to REDUCE an UNDESIRED behaviour.

Niagara Dog Training: “Niagara Dog Training uses a Balanced Training Method: Correcting Undesirable Behaviour while Praising the Positive. The system is called ‘First Command Response’: Your dog will respond to you on the First Command. If you repeat commands and let your dog get away without compliance, he/she will learn to be in control and the undesirable behaviour will continue to get worse.“

Beyond the Leash: “Your dog will learn to respond to you out of RESPECT for you as leader of his/her “pack”. You will instill this leadership role by speaking to a him/her in a language that is natural to the dog and is based on instinctual wolf pack behaviour so he/she will easily understand. Our BALANCED methods will let the dog know the difference between wanted and unwanted behaviours. We will use both positive and negative re-enforcements in a manner that will increase the bond between you and your dog and get results quickly.“

Common Themes, Big Promises

My reading of the websites above and several more not listed shows some common themes. Remarkably, one of the most common traits these sites share is a very vague description of the actual techniques and philosophies behind the training methodology used.

Many of the sites go to great lengths to demonstrate an association with Cesar Millan, TV’s Dog Whisperer. Brian Agnew of The Balanced Dog goes into detail about his training by a dog trainer who was “mentored” by Millan. Another website even bills its trainer as the Ottawa’s Dog Whisperer.

Another common theme is the suggestion that discipline or a firm hand is necessary for “balance”. There are frequent references to either “nature” or dogs in their natural environment (whatever that is…the dog is a domesticated animal) and how certain behaviours must be corrected or stopped. While the suggestion that a dog will encounter aversive situations in life is mostly accurate, these descriptions sound more like justifications for showing the dog who is “in charge” of things, as if providing the food and water wasn’t enough to demonstrate that. The implication is that “balance” is punishing as much as you reward. The pleasant and unpleasant balance each other out in some unspecified equation.

There are promises too. These training methods will apparently make both you and your dogs happier. Once everyone understands who’s boss, life becomes easier for everyone. Most of the sites talk about how they can get you to this magical blissful state and that it will be permanent. Once your dog is trained, he is trained. In fact, some sites even offer services where you can drop off the dog and they will train him for you.

Perhaps most remarkable of all is the assertion by many of these websites that their “balanced” methods will bring FAST results. This is consistent with another main theme of many of these websites: the promise to stop any of a number of undesired behaviours like soiling the house, barking, jumping, etc.

So Millan seems to have sparked a redefinition in dog training, but has anything really changed? If we take a closer look, there are some pretty clear signs that this is mostly the same stuff in a new wrapper. “Corrections” are now defined as using “Calm Assertive Energy” or “Negative Reinforcement” (an inaccurate use of the term). Being the “alpha dog” has now been replaced by “pack leader.” In many ways, “Balanced Training” has simply become the “Tough Love” for a politically-correct generation seeking socially acceptable terms for the same old correction based training.

Guilt by Implication

As a science-based trainer, I’m dismayed by the prevalence of incorrect information on many of these “balanced” dog training sites. The frequent misinterpretation of “negative reinforcement” is particularly troublesome. What balanced trainers describe as “negative reinforcement” is often “positive punishment” in the form of a correction. Almost invariably what the trainer is punishing is non-compliance with a cue or request for a behaviour. In effect, the dog gets “corrected” for not doing something he/she may or may not understand that he/she was supposed to do. So the dog is punished for making the attempt to comply if they don’t get it right.

Many balanced trainers warn dog owners not to let their dogs get away with non-compliance. Niagara Dog Training even warns that non-compliance can lead to things “getting worse”. It’s the canine equivalent of “spare the rod and spoil the child”. Balanced trainers suggest that the only way to achieve “balance” in training is to include a healthy dose of correction for non-compliance along with the rewards for doing as asked.

The implication then is that those who do not use corrections in training are unbalanced? It’s clever marketing tactic but wildly inaccurate. Teaching a dog which behaviours we prefer shouldn’t be about eliminating all of the alternatives through corrections. If you had a choice to teach your dog what is INCORRECT versus what you WANT them to do, which is the shorter list? Wouldn’t it be easier to reward the correct responses than to punish the incorrect ones? Dogs live such short lives compared to us. Does that sound “unbalanced” to you?

The Song Remains The Same

Balanced trainers may have changed the beat, but the song they sing remains the same. More than half of the sites I looked at make a point of saying their methods either do not use food or minimize its use. The dog should work for just praise or physical affection. Many of the site referred to clickers and clicker training as a “gimmick” even though that training methodology has been with us since the 1950s and has been effective on hundreds of different species of animals including dogs. Compliance with commands is mandatory and non-compliance should result in swift and effective “corrections” or undesired behaviour could get worse. That’s a song that is all too familiar in the dog training world. Didn’t we call that “Traditional Training”?

It’s an interesting time in dog training. Behavioural science is making dog training much easier and more effective. Children can be taught to use clicker training to teach dogs. Rather than Fido being the wild animal to be feared and dominated, many homes are instead enjoying a cooperative training relationship that seeks to integrate the dog into the family without conflict. But where does this leave the Traditional Dog Trainer with his choke chains and alpha dominance mystique?

Not surprisingly, the clever trainer adapts. Correction becomes Negative Reinforcement. Alpha becomes Pack Leader. Traditional Training becomes Balanced Training. As their market share gets threatened by new techniques that they do not understand, they get louder. As these new techniques produce equivalent or better results than theirs, they will try to discredit them any way they can. Traditional trainers will likely get more vocal and shrill as reinforcement based techniques continue to gain popularity.

Buyer Beware

It’s important to bear in mind an important fact when looking at corrections. Corrections reinforce the person doing the correcting. You jerk that leash and the behaviour stops — you have power. That’s a good feeling, so good that you might not notice the other things your correction is doing to your dog’s behaviour. Is it any surprise that balanced dog trainers are telling you they can get you quick results? You will probably feel successful the instant you stop what you don’t want, and in a few months, you may be happy (or maybe dismayed) that your dog doesn’t seem as lively and eager anymore.

The fact is that tens of millions of dollars are spent every year in North America by people who are just trying to train their dogs. Some of these people go from one trainer to another, one method to another, in hopes of getting the dog they had as a child or the one they saw on TV. They just want a dog to understand what they want from them. The lucky ones will find trainers who will teach them about the best ways to communicate at the dog’s level, helping the dog to understand very human concepts in a way a dog can comprehend. The rest will likely embark on a struggle with their dogs for “control” or “dominance” and while the dog may seem happy enough, the dog will be put through a series of unnecessary tests and ordeals until she figures it out.

When the time comes to spend your training dollars and teach that new puppy with the big brown eyes, I hope you will try to see past the rhetoric and misinformation. I promise you the truth about dogs is out there. There are lots of great books and websites. Many knowledgeable trainers are out there too, ready to help you develop a healthy and cooperative relationship with your dog. Chances are, your dog will spend his or her lifetime with you. That life should be as free from stress and full of fun as we can make it.

Decide how you want to live with your dog and then find the help you need to get there. All dogs can be trained using behavioural science and positive methods, regardless of their age. You can teach an old dog new tricks and have fun doing it at the same time.

“Balanced” training raised a red flag for me because:

a) its practitioners are not even consistent with each other in their definition of the term;
b) much of what I read sounded strangely familiar from things I was taught and read many years ago, so it’s not new, and;
c) I’m just not a believer in “quick fix” techniques that don’t take my dog’s motivation and happiness into account.

If that makes me “unbalanced”, so be it. I’m certain that I’m not alone. My dogs and I are very happy the way we are.

Comments

This is one of the best articles I’ve read about balanced dog training and I agree with most of what you are saying. I’ve read through some of the other comments and I appreciate how you seem to understand other peoples points of views.

One thing to note: if you search all positive dog trainers – you will also see discrepancies, inconsistencies, inaccuracies etc about that philosophy of training. So it’s not just with balanced trainers.

The thing I dislike most about trainers who claim to be all-positive (don’t use a leash and collar correction), is that they often don’t have solutions for severe behavioral problems such as aggression. And then they criticize the trainers that do. I have worked with many dogs who came to me from all positive dog trainers and were told that the behavior would never be ‘fixable’ or even worse, to euthanize their dog. I have worked with so many dogs who were kicked out of dog training school for barking or whining in class or for being too aggressive towards other dogs or people.

Do you have any articles/videos/links you could send me on working with aggressive/reactive dogs without using corrections? I would love to learn more. I have read a lot of articles but I have actually never seen this in action.

PS. The last paragraph is not meant to be sarcastic or condescending. I actually really want to learn more and I am always open to seeing things differently. I think anyone who works in the realm of education (dog trainers, high school teachers etc) should always be open to learning, changing, and reflecting.

Having a reactive dog myself I have found a heap of great info on counter conditioning and desensitisation on the below facebook group.
Reactive Dogs
Once you join, make sure to go to the files section as there is heaps of information there.
Leonie

You make a fair point regarding “all positive dog trainers” and their description of what that means on various web sites. Personally, I am very reluctant to label the kind of training I do except to say that it is based on the sciences of behaviour and animal learning. Who is to say what “positive” training is or what “balanced” training is? The terms are too nebulous for me. The topic I tackle in this particular article is trainers that are using the term “balanced” as a marketing tool. After all, no one wants to be an “unbalanced” trainer. To me it seems like many trainers co-opt the phrase to mean that their way is “proper” or “normal” as opposed to other methods which are, by implication, inferior. That’s not exactly ethical, in my opinion.

With regard to “all-positive” trainers, I have never personally seen a trainer use that term to describe what they do. I have only seen “all-positive” or “purely-positive” used by trainers who consider themselves “balanced.” I admit that my experience may be limited and I’d be glad for any links that might show me otherwise. So I generally don’t address what “all-positive” trainers do or do not do.

With regard to dealing with aggressive/reactive behaviours, I think the issue may be that those of us who use science-based training are aware the behaviour does not occur in a vacuum. There must be a function that the behaviour performs for the animal in order for them to expend the energy to perform it. Too often I see trainers employing methods to stop a given behaviour without addressing the underlying reason the dog is performing the behaviour in the first place. I personally have never met a dog that is aggressive because they enjoy being aggressive – they actually take pleasure in the behaviour. More often it is because of fear. If we don’t address the underlying fear response, we are just suppressing behaviour and that may come back to bite us (sometimes literally) later. So it shouldn’t be surprising if science-based trainers don’t have simple answers to a complicated behavioural question. You don’t “fix” behaviour, in my opinion. You work with the dog to make them successful. Sometimes that means management, sometimes training, and sometimes a little of both.

There are a lot of great resources out there to help you deal with aggressive/reactive dogs. I can point you to my own article Bad Dog – Solving the Wrong Problem which addresses some of your question. I would also recommend the following books “Click to Calm” by Emma Parsons, “Feisty Fido – Help for the Leash Reactive Dog” by Patricia McConnell, and “Scaredy Dog! Understanding and Rehabilitating Your Reactive Dog” by Ali Brown.

Hope that answers some of your questions. Please feel free to contact me at eric@caninenation.ca if I can be of any further help!

“Some dog trainers might say my dog isn’t perfect. She doesn’t always come when called. She can sometimes take a little too long to sit when I ask. She pulls on her leash on walks. But for all of her imperfections, she is perfectly Tiramisu – the dog I trained and love. Maybe “perfect” isn’t really what I wanted in a dog at all.” -Eric Brad

…what a joke… and you really believe you’re in a position to judge other trainers? ones that actually achieve results? hahah, just give up and be a groomer or a boarder if you still want to be in the industry because you clearly aren’t well suited to training dogs. (even positive dog trainers using less than effective training methods will ***eventually*** achieve a high level of obedience with enough hours put in) also, the definition of obedience is compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another’s authority. Id argue you are in no way qualified to expel advice on obedience or training in general if your own dog is not obedient. why would someone trust you enough to give you money to achieve a level of obedience that you can not display to them in your own dog. Doesn’t bode well for you personally or for the methods you utilize and talk up to no end in articles like the one above. Best of luck in your future “training” endeavours.

You know, Jack, I’m generally reluctant to reply to the kind of blather you posted but in this case I’ll humour you.

Considering your knowledge of me and my dog is limited to what you read in my articles, you know very little about us. Tiramisu is a 3 time agility champion and has her Canadian CGC certification. She has also passed a herding instinct certification. She is a well rounded and well educated dog. To say that my methods are “less than effective” is laughable given that Tiramisu has a repertoire of over 70 distinct behaviours from utility and management behaviours to tricks and specialized behaviours for tracking, herding, agility, competitive obedience and other disciplines.

Regarding my qualifications to “expel” dog training advice, I am a CPDT-KA certified trainer (if you don’t know what that is, well, I wouldn’t be surprised). I teach people how to train their dogs to work with them enthusiastically and reliably. I do not teach people how to make their dogs “compliant” and “submissive.” I leave that to the other hacks in the industry who can’t be bothered to catch up to modern training methods and continue to try to impress people by showing off what their dogs will NOT do (“See? She will stay there no matter what because she is obedient.” – or terrified to do anything else).

At 9 years of age, Tiramisu is still an active agility competitor and continues to qualify regularly in trials. We are hoping for a fourth and possibly fifth championship in the new year. My methods work just fine thank you. The clients I work with are quite happy with their results.

Should you, in future, wish to have a substantive discussion about dogs, behaviour, or training, I would be happy to oblige. As it stands, your recent comment boils down to “Neener, neener, you suck and I’m great.” I can’t really respond to that in any meaningful way. So I’ll just say – Best of luck in YOUR training endeavours as well.

I’m glad your clients don’t mind that your dog, in your own words, doesn’t always come when called. that’s quite understanding of them. they must be more interested in titling their dogs in agility rather than saving them from being hit by a car. If this is the case you’ve lucked out, Most people in my experience want their dog to come when called and stop pulling on the leash. Both of which you admit you haven’t been able to accomplish in your own dog. also, I’m certain that I kept my message limited to you. I’d be interested to see a quote that falls under the “I’m Great” category.

How you can claim that the methods you use are modern and effective and yet not be able to successfully achieve the most basic of training goals in a dog you have spent countless hours training to achieve titles with is beyond me. The way I see it is that there are 2 possible conclusions 1) The methods you use aren’t effective or 2)you are not cut out to teach obedience but rather more suited towards parlour tricks and dog sports. I’ll let you choose.

I’m fairly certain the only name calling occurs in your articles and subsequent posts. I’ve made no claims that your dog never comes not that your dog always pulls. You, like many positive dog trainers I’ve come in contact with seem to be driven more by heart than by logic, in spite of your claim that science is on your side and your side alone anyone with an academic background in any if the sciences knows the ways in which the same studies and data can be manipulated or interpreted to “prove” competing and opposite viewpoints. anyways, i seem to have hit a nerve with you, perhaps those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, (the article above is a series of stones). Btw. In spite of my dog being a happy, well adjusted dog who enjoys bite work, scent work, man tracking and agility, when I call him, he is on his way within 2 seconds. Everytime. This is not an exaggeration, it is a fact. (The fact this seems so unbelievable to you is quite telling seeing as again, there are even some “reward based methods only” trainers who can claim the same thing) My dog is not required to be glued to my side either (one of many opinions you made up for me). Have fun writing your “academic” articles and judging people (kinda stings when it comes back to you doesn’t it?).

And saying that the earth revolves around the sun is like saying that objects move because of – gremlins. Here’s the thing, Cynthia, I am not the one saying that dogs do not organize themselves into hierarchical packs of hunting animals. Science and research says that.

Can you point me to the study that proves conclusively that dogs struggle for dominance in a status based hierarchy and organize themselves according to an alpha leader? In fact, find me a wolf study that proves that.

Now, if you are content believing in things just because someone told you that, fine. Just don’t impose your beliefs on my science.

The beauty of science is that science doesn’t care what you believe – it remains true whether you believe it or not. And the animals aren’t listening to your beliefs either. We only know what we can observe.

I personally look forward to the day that people see “balanced” dog training for what it really is. I find it really irritating when trainer say, “oh well, I am a BALANCED” trainer, like it is a badge of honor. When really all it means is that they have bought into misinformation and follow dog training ideas that have been shown to have absolutely terrible outcomes. I have worked with “balanced” trainers. I have taken on dogs that came from “balanced” trainers and the majority are so poorly adjusted, scared of people, aggressive and/or reactive. The “balanced” trainers I worked with completely disregarded stress signals from dogs. Continue to push clearly afraid dogs. Then they are completely astonished when they get bit…I would roll my eyes if it weren’t for the poor dogs that have to endure this B.S. Some of the cases you can actually trace back the exact training instance that causes the trigger to form. It is sad that we have to fix and rehabilitate dogs b/c of the “balanced” training methods that were previously used on them.

We dont’ get to decide the association the dog makes to the adversive. Will they become afraid an aspect of the surrounding, a dog they are looking at, a person they are around, the handler? Will they become hand shy and distrusting of people. Will the pop on the face the trainer just gave the dog then cause the dog to bite a child unwittlingly swinging thier hands around. There is a never ending supply of data showing the fallout of “balanced” training and the use of adversives. Why people think making a dog uncomfortable or subdued is preferable to linking behaviors you like with rewards and actually getting the dog to like doing what you want them to do, is beyond me.

The other arguement for “balanced” training: “Every dog is different, and the same method can’t be used on every dog… ” MORE B.S.! I have never heard such a bunch of malarky. Of course every dog is different! “The cult of positive dog trianing” knows that better than anyone. The fact is that while every dog is different, using adversives on every dog until you realize it was too much for the specific dog you are working with is unacceptable. The moment you realize you went to far, the damage is already done.

I recently had a client with a dog that was a persistant jumper. A balanced trainer I know insisted that the only way to train the dog away from jumping was to continue to use a prong collar and jerk the dog off of people. The fact that the dog had been jerked off and punished for jumping 4 times already (and a successful punishment should exstinguish the behavior within 2 repetitions) wasn’t an issue to this trainer… Just keep doing it until it works.. Right?! No. Wrong. Now the dog has repeated physical corrections when greeting people, and now greeting people will become assocaited with pain and fear… Anyone familiar with Pavlov?? hmmm.. greeting people= pain and fear.. people= danger… you get the picture. There is nothing balanced about this.. and the only thing natural about it is that nature makes the neural pathways.. we don’t.

I was able to take this same dog and write 6 different trianing protocals, using force- free trianing methods, some used reward removal, some involved training incompatable alternate behaviors and others purely positive reinforcement using food. The training method that finally won out.. Mom calling the dog away from guests.. leaving guest alone= awesome! Guests entering the house= give them sapce. People= great! That is right, the positive reinforcement protocal. Even though I was using only force-free truly dog friendly, humane (humane= would use it on a human) methods it was by no means a cookie cutter approach. The technique was tailored to the dog and thier human. When one approach didn’t work, I was able to brain storm another. Fortunately, my mind has not been clouded with adversive methods, so I don’t default to them… I am constantly looking for new and different ways to train the specific dog that I am working with using only progressive reinfocement training techniques.. If that makes me a cult member… nooo I was going to say so be it, but a cult is defined as: a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous.. and since positive reinforcement is the antithesis of dangerous.. I digress.

Food for thought. Even Webster’s Dictionary has to revamp words as society insists on giving them new meaning. You can’t change human perception, but you can attempt to keep up with its many interpretations so that discussions can be more clear to the real issue. The scientific/professional dialogue is for the improvement of “our trade”, but there needs to be an unbiased educational site for the average lay-person to be better informed so they are not just led by popularity of trend words. In the end, its the dog that pays when trainers bicker amongst themselves. This site was quite interesting to read and I admire the wealth of knowledge, but I strongly believe we need to present these interpretations where they clarify instead of further complication on how to find a suitable trainer. Give better examples on what the lay-person should be asking and how the answers differ.

Depending on the true needs of the dog and owner, depends on the methods and urgency. Saving a fear aggressive (severly abused dog) requires a different approach than a well bred, well socialized dog in the right hands, We also have our comfort zones and specialties. The tool of choice is a “tool” not the end means. Any equipment (even a simple flat collar and lead) can be beneficial or catastrophic depending on how its used. I have been fortunate on witnessing true experts teach the correct way to use equiment. An e-collar uses electricity to stimulate the tissue….not inject electricity into the body as a taser. E-collar correctly used on lower stimulation is less damaging than hard pulling on a flat collar on the throat. Untill professional dog trainers establish a professional glossary on all possible interpretations, can any credible progress on the methodologies or their correct application occur.

I have found very few blogs that work towards an actual resolution. So much talent and knowledge should build upon an example on “how it should be” instead of “what it’s not”.

In a way, Paul has a point and I think this may be the source of confusion about positive reinforcement-based trainers’ objection to corrections. A balanced trainer sees “corrections” as instructive rather than “punishing” because they MAY well act as a reinforcer. Most corrections (at least the ones I was taught years ago) are BOTH P+ and R- depending on the behaviour of the animal regardless of the intent of the trainer. He/she may not regard them as punishers or may not *wish* to regard them as punishers. Generally, the “correction” if applied after the animal has learned – to some extent – the desired response to a cue, ends when the dog complies with the cue. Hence, it becomes negatively reinforcing. Therefore, in a “proper” correction, P+ will punish the standing (or whatever the dog did that wasn’t sitting) and the R- (removing the discomfort) will increase sitting behaviour.

If, as a balanced trainer, Paul et al., you don’t believe corrections are P+ then I can see why you might be insulted by a trainer that insists that they *are* based on learning theory quadrants. However, you’d be wrong. And possibly right as well. Because they are usually both P+ and R-. If done well.

That doesn’t detract from the experience of many P+ trainers that the dog will learn the desired behaviour without corrections and there may well be fallout from using them.

What I was trying to describe to Paul McNamara was, in fact, Negative Reinforcement (coupled with Positive Punishment as you correctly point out). “Negative” being the removal or absence of an undesirable stimulus, the absence or stopping of the “correction” when the desired behaviour is offered does indeed act as a reinforcer for the desired behaviour.

“If, as a balanced trainer, Paul et al., you don’t believe corrections are P+ then I can see why you might be insulted by a trainer that insists that they *are* based on learning theory quadrants. However, you’d be wrong. And possibly right as well. Because they are usually both P+ and R-. If done well.”

That is what I meant when I said that Brad’s interpretation of a correction was at best ‘partial’. Now that Brad has been fair enough to allow the comments to stand, the article has achieved ‘balance’.

“That doesn’t detract from the experience of many P+ trainers that the dog will learn the desired behaviour without corrections and there may well be fallout from using them.”

Fallout would most likely occur if the trainer were to approach the correction as a punishment. And I don’t mean simply in the emotional sense (although that may well play a part). It would simply be counter-productive (from the perspective of training) to think in terms of eliminating behavior.

While I don’t disagree with your article, I’m not sure the concept or phrase “balanced training” is entirely without merit.

For me, balanced training is understanding that there are four quadrants to the operant chart, and that the trainer should be sensitive to which will be most effective in a given situation with a given animal. Since, by definition, reinforcement increases behavior, it only makes sense to use reinforcement to teach most behaviors. Almost always that means positive reinforcement — I’ve rarely found a practical use for negative reinforcement.

However, since punishment by definition means something that decreases a behavior, it also makes sense to me that properly applied punishment is a way to decrease unwanted behavior. Sometimes teaching incompatible behaviors works as well or better, but I personally don’t have a problem with using punishment (verbal or physical) in ways that I feel are appropriate. Bear in mind that a stern “Knock it off!” or being banished to the far side of a baby gate is positive punishment — punishment in not necessarily brutal.

Negative punishment can also be very helpful — for instance, handing an expected treat to another dog when the first dog isn’t putting in adequate effort.

For me, the key of balanced training is finding solutions that allow both the human and the dog to be happy. Most often positive reinforcement is the best route to happiness for all parties, but if reinforcement isn’t working to achieve the human’s goals in a timely fashion, I think there are times when punishment, appropriately applied, can get everyone to a cheerful place. For instance, if my puppy is pouncing on the cat, I have no qualms about hauling her off by her collar and letting her know that behavior is not OK.

You know, I couldn’t agree more with your comment. If I had found your definition at all of the websites that called themselves “Balanced Training”, this would have been a very different article. My point in writing this article was that what I found was not at all the reasonable and helpful definition you present but a re-packaging of the same old dominance-based traditional methods some people have always advocated.

There are indeed 4 quadrants (and, of course, Extinction) and all have their uses and effects. A good trainer understands what they are using and why and is prepared to deal with what comes of it intelligently. I only wish more trainers put the kind of thought into this that you have, Lynn.

Just to note, in seeing that Lynn has written, “I’ve rarely found a practical use for negative reinforcement,” I wanted to note a practical example of it that I’ve recently seen.

One form of negative reinforcement that I personally appreciate is one of pressure and release, which can be used with dogs as well as horses, and does not have to be harsh. It can be a gentle way to introduce a dog to “give to pressure.” The pressure is the aversive, and “giving to it” makes the aversive stop. See for example, Tyler Muto’s “conversational leash work,” something I only very recently discovered, which I am greatly drawn to as, at least in my opinion, a very helpful introduction to a leash for a dog – not expecting a dog to initially know what it is to “walk on a loose leash,” and so, gently introducing it with a mild, but clear aversive, which is immediately released when a dog “gives” to it.

Editor: Continued at another link… (see below)

[EDIT – Due to the length of this reply, Linda has graciously moved it, in it’s entirety, to her Facebook page. The full text of this reply can be found HERE. All links and references she posted here are on that page.]

Paul,
I am finding it difficult to understand your assertion that the correction reinforces the sit. If the correction is given when the dog does NOT perform the sit (or other cued behaviour), how does it reinforce that behaviour?
Of course, when the dog sits, it does preclude any and all other behaviours. So, the dog is cued to sit and it chooses not to. A correction is given. Perhaps now the dog MIGHT sit or it MIGHT lie down. Not sure how this makes any sense to the dog. Have you never heard “Consequence dictates behaviour.”? If the correction is INTENDED as a reinforcement, should it not be something PLEASANT for the dog to WANT to comply with the sit command? Never mind the fact that it comes BEFORE the desired behaviour. The application of a correction in the absence of compliance TAKES AWAY (or punishes in operant conditioning terms) any other option the dog has for behaviours when given the sit cue. “Sit”, dog lies down, correction, dog bows, correction, dog sits, good dog. How is that possibly a reinforcement if the dog DOES NOT get it if they perform correctly, but only when they perform wrong?
Sorry, Paul. Your argument makes no sense.

While it was certainly an interesting exchange, I think it is best to let Paul McNamara have the last word on this topic. I will let his arguments stand on their own merit and let my readers make up their own mind.

As always, I encourage you to do your own reading, your own investigating, and come to your own best conclusions when it comes to your dogs and dog training.

You say in the above: “In operant conditioning terms, a “correction” would be positive punishment”

In operant conditioning terms a ‘correction’ would be positive punishment according to YOUR INTERPRETATION of what is going on when correction is being applied.

Your interpretation is not science. Correction is not a term found within operant conditioning. You give at best a partial interpretation of what is going on when a correction is properly applied. Perhaps if you got your head out books and went and actually talked to a balanced trainer and watched them train and observed the results and made an effort to understand what they are saying and why they are saying it, you might learn something of practical value.

Interpreting science to fit one’s own preconceived ideas is as old as the use of statistics to say whatever one pleases.

I’m going to assume from your comments that you consider yourself a “balanced” trainer. So enlighten me, what IS going on when a correction is properly applied? Try to use Operant Conditioning terms. I’m curious as to how you see it since what I offer was “at best a partial interpretation”.

I’ve been watching “balanced” trainers most of my life with dogs. I have observed the results. I feel that I know what they are saying and why they are saying it. And you know what, Paul? What they do works for them and people pay them money to show them how to do what they do. That doesn’t mean they have the first clue WHY it works from a behavioural perspective. And most probably don’t care as long as it gets acceptable results. So be it, live and let live.

And you know what else is “as old as the use of statistics to say whatever one pleases”? Declaring that someone should get their “head out of books” and making the implication that they have no experience in the subject matter. If you want to have a discussion, I’m happy to do that. If you want to call me names, well, I have better things to do. Like train dogs, for example.

Eric, it is a little late to be taking the high road of “live and let live” after you have spent a whole article attacking others for their perceived failures. Quite clearly you do not believe that such trainers get ‘acceptable results’ as why would you end your article by saying “I’m just not a believer in “quick fix” techniques that don’t take my dog’s motivation and happiness into account”? You are quite clearly attacking these trainers lack of understanding behavioral science AS THE REASON they don’t get acceptable results.

On the other hand, you ask me to explain in ‘operant conditioning’ terms what is going on? Why should I? What if I think it is far more enlightening to discuss what is going on in the dog’s head as a better means to understanding behavior and the training process? But as behaviorism rules out the mind as irrelevant to behavior I am not going to get very far using the terms of ‘operant conditioning’.

Still, for what it’s worth, if I spend four days and over 150 repetitions carefully teaching my dog to sit and then once the dog clearly shows its understanding of the command THEN AND ONLY THEN introduce a correction for failure to sit, the correction if applied correctly will work to reinforce the behavior of ‘sitting on command’. One might, if one has an agenda, insist that the correction is an example of positive punishment in that it has reduced the tendency of behavior to repeat – but one still has not explained why the behavior of sitting on command has indeed been reinforced. One is also left pondering what behavior is it that has been punished – is it standing? – is it dropping? – is it rolling over on one’s back? – is it running away? What behavior exactly has been reduced in its tendency to repeat? Even if you wish to insist that certain behavior has been reduced in its tendency to repeat it is still only a partial explanation in that it ignores the behavior in which a sit correction clearly reinforces – namely, ‘sitting on command’.

Before we go any further with the “name calling” let me quote you from the very article we are discussing – I wrote “Decide how you want to live with your dog and then find the help you need to get there.” If you want to use “corrections”, use “corrections.” That’s between you and your dogs. I can’t tell you which god to pray to or how to raise your kids either. What I can tell you is about the choices I’ve made and why.

Whether you choose to use Operant Conditioning (or for that matter Classical Conditioning) terminology or if you want to discuss what’s “going on in the dog’s head”, you have essentially done neither. I would go further to say that you cannot possibly know what the dog’s thought process is. We simply do not have the context as humans to do that. The best you can do is speculate. Our only guidance is the dog’s behaviour.

A “correction” is, by definition, Positive Punishment in Operant Conditioning terms. I encourage you to look that up and verify it for yourself. A Positive Punisher is any aversive stimulus which reduces the frequency or likelihood of a behaviour. Which behaviour, you ask? ANY behaviour but the one you are asking for. In his book “Coercion and Its Fallout”, Dr. Murray Sidman describes experiments on rats where the rats were shocked when they failed to perform certain tasks. The rats quickly learned to do the desired behaviour as an avoidance mechanism knowing that the shock was the penalty for non-compliance. “Corrections”, at least as I was taught to do them years ago, are intended to be unpleasant (not necessarily painful or harmful, but annoying) and something to be avoided. It is the same principle as described in Sidman’s book. Yes, for 150 repetitions you have shown your dog what the desired behaviour is and now, with your “corrections”, you add the dimension of a threat of annoyance should they not comply with your cue to “sit.” I admit I’m not happy that Skinner chose the term Punishment for a reduction in behaviour because it often brings emotion into the discussion and that’s not what I’m trying to do here. By using “corrections”, the trainers I have seen use this to best effect are using it to diminish the likelihood of any and all behaviours OTHER than the one cued. That, by definition, is Positive Punishment in Operant Conditioning terms.

And so, I will ask you, in what way does a stimulus the dog seeks to avoid REINFORCE a behaviour? I would suggest that the opporunity to successfully AVOID that stimulus is what is actually doing the reinforcing. When the dog successfully avoids the unpleasant thing by “sitting”, they have learned a successful strategy for avoiding that punisher. And VOILA!, you have your reinforcement. I never said it doesn’t work. I could even explain it in more detail if you would like. What I AM saying is that I think there is a better way. You may disagree and you are free to do so.

As for agendas, well, my only agenda is to shed some light on things using clear definitions. You can call it a “correction” if you want, but it remains something to be avoided if you know and perform the right behaviour to get it to stop or avoid it. You might be interested in my article “The Costs of Correcting Your Dog” here at Life As A Human for more information and references.

Eric, there is a great deal I might say in response, but for the sake of brevity I will confine myself to the following:

You say: By using “corrections”, the trainers I have seen use this to best effect are using it to diminish the likelihood of any and all behaviors OTHER than the one cued. That, by definition, is Positive Punishment in Operant Conditioning terms.”

That is nothing more than an interpretation. You might as well explain my decision to buy a certain car as my desiring to avoid buying all other cars. To move in certain direction NECESSARILY entails forgoing all other directions. When a dog sits of his own accord it NECESSARILY forgoes all other behaviors. To claim that the dog sits in order to avoid all other behaviors is really quite silly. To say that a correction is positive punishment because it diminishes all other behaviors other than “sitting’ is likewise quite silly.

A balanced trainer would say that the correction reinforces the sit – that sitting precludes all other behaviors goes without saying. Your interpretation which focuses on the absence of all other behaviors – which are NECESSARILY precluded by the action of sitting – is defined by your insistence on reading positive punishment into the correction. You are unable to say which PARTICULAR behavior is being punished and hence diminished, so in order to save your theory you say ALL AND ANY BEHAVIOR other the sitting is being punished.

The fact that when I say ‘sit’ and then correct for failure to sit , it follows that all other behavior is necessarily precluded by the action of sitting is a LOGICAL NECESSITY. You have treated a logical necessity as a causal necessity (e.g. all other behavior other than sitting has and will be diminished as caused by positive punishment). But of course, as all other behavior is necessarily and logically precluded by sitting your interpretation can never be proven false by evidence. A claim that cannot be proven false by testing is ipso facto not science.

Ok…so MY website was used as one of the examples of the use of the term “balanced”. I don’t have a problem with the fact that it was used because I stand by my use of the term “balanced” and “all press is good press” LOL. (actually the only way i found this article was from my website stats page as someone clicked the link to get to my site so thats a good thing)

I do however have some issues with the article itself.

“Latest buzzword” is what the term “balanced” has been called in the title. I have been training dogs with my own school for almost 15 years and have always used this term. My mentor and the trainer that I apprenticed under has used the term “balanced” for 20 plus years before that, so it is far from a “new” term.

The main reason i use this term so much in my advertising and literature is to disassociate, and distance myself from the many trainers practicing methods that have much more misused and “newer” buzzords….such as “all positive”, “reward based”, and “non threatening”.

I DO NOT call my self a “balanced” trainer to “hide” the fact that I use corrections, or to “trick” potential clients to believe that somehow I “don’t use correction”(which is what this article is implying). I am using the term BALANCED to let potential clients know that my training will NOT be like what they see so much at Petsmart….it NOT going to rely on treats, or clickers…..that we will use positive rewards (verbal, physical, and very occasionally food/treat) BUT we will also use negative re-enforcement with properly timed corrections as well…..a “BALANCE”.

Also the author is trying to assume that all of us trainers out there that do incorporate corrections into out methods are somehow trying to make some allegiance with “the dog whisperer”. I for one am NOT a fan. In my initial group class were clients come for orientation WITHOUT dogs….one of the first things I mention is that if they are training with me and are a fan of Caesars…I need them to FORGET everything they have seen on that show…and come on board with what I am trying to instruct. I am completely different than Caesar as in my training a “properly timed correction” should be given in a manner where the dog “believes that he/she created the correction” . The correction should be associated with the unwanted behavior and appear to NOT have come from the owner/handler at all. So the dog will associate the correction with the unwanted behavior (pulling for example) and not the owner…..the only thing the dog should associate with the owner is “praise and reward”. Caesars methods of correction simultaneous with sound (ahhh) and touch completely undermines key details to my methods.

Lastly I am far from “threatened” by the plethora of “all positive” trainer out there like the author suggests. Quite the contrary. I believe using correction makes me “stick out” in the crowd and give another option when people try Petsmart type trainers and don’t GET RESULTS! My only “problem” with “reward based trainers” is I find that when some clients do end up at one of their schools first and achieve no results…..clients will sometimes assume that ALL trainers are the same trying another trainer won’t work either….or worse yet that it was THE DOGS FAULT results did not come and the dog was somehow “dumb” (believe me I have had clients tell me some trainers have suggested their dog was not smart enough for training when it was their methods that really failed).

If anything writing this article and criticizing competition that incorporates different methods than yourself is a sign of being “threatened”. I always tell potential clients to “come watch my classes” AND also audit other trainers in the area….BEFORE THEY SIGN UP WITH ME….I suggest they see trainer that use “reward based methods” and school that are similar to my style…..AND CHOOSE WHAT IS A RIGHT FIT FOR THEM AND THEIR DOG! Using corrections in a “balanced” training may work for many….others may find they are more suited to ‘reward based style” training….to each their own.

I use a prong collar, e collar, a clicker and lots of games. The clicker or verbal marker will only take you so far as been proven time and time again. You can scour the web with clips of tricks or behaviors dogs have been taught with high value treats, a clicker and or verbal marker; they usually are shot in there living room or in very low distraction environments. Corrections have their place wether its a gary wilks bonker, prong or ecollar.

Yes, Jerry. As has been proven time and again for decades, fear of imminent bodily harm can be a powerful motivator. It will also get results FAST. I agree that “corrections”, or as I like to term it – stopping behaviour, has it’s place. For me that place is in getting rid of undesirable behaviours and not teaching new ones.

As far as your comments regarding the durability of behaviours trained using reinforcement, I would be confident in saying you are under experienced or under informed regarding dogs trained using these methods. Champions in virtually all dog sports have trained to the highest levels of competition using reinforcement based training. I daresay that sports like dog agility and herding are very high distraction environments.

By all means, use the style of training that suits you and your dog. But be honest about what you are doing. If threatening the dog to keep them from losing their focus when you want it works for you, just be honest about how you choose to train. History is behind you on this one. That kind of training WORKS.

why all this stress placed on nomenclature?a reward is a reward and a correction is a correction both are a means of communication and nothing more.if you want to punish the dog you should not have the dog or any dog.we reward to signify a behaivor that we want we correct to signify a behaivor we don’t want or to make the dog understand they are compelled to respond to something.having been fortunate enough to win a national sch championship with one of my dogs can not believe any one competes succesfully without the use of some type of correction or compulsion.correction may be as simple as removing the reward or in a dog who is properly trained the sound of a “negative” marker.i do what ever works to train to very high levels for myself and our customers and we produce happy well adjusted dogs who can live in a human society and in some cases compete on the highest levels in different dog sports.we also use food,toys,balls,love,markers etc.a correction is always followed by reward for compliance,it is simple and it works.whatever scientist who has proven dogs are not pack animals needs to come live with me and the 9 dogs that live with me for awhile.i have a couple who would happily explain to him in no uncertain terms he is wrong.the 9 by the way are 4 working gsds and 5 bichons.to think any one can learn dog training from a book or understand any thing by the nomenclature on a website is at best extremely naive at worst extremely short sighted and egotistical.am a great supporter of dogtra and herm springer as well as red barn,wilson tennis balls,jute tugs,positive and negative markers and love my dogs more than life.by the way as well as all the other bells and whistles you have to have the ability and talent to see the the world through the eyes of the dog.not through the eyes of an author or “scientist’.there relly is nothing new in dog training since ancient man extended a piece of meat to the wolf who approached his camp fire.i can’t count the dogs we have saved from execution using these techniques and am truly proud of it.

I’m a clicker trainer. I raise and train service dogs. These dogs must have zero latency, very high precision, and very good reliability. Their handler’s lives depend on it.

We do not use positive punishment in our training. Not in the beginning, not to “proof” behavior. And we teach the clients, the people in the wheelchairs, that they can get what they need by using positive reinforcement.

I can attest to the high degree of reliability that clicker training can provide. Our clients’ lives depend on it.

I caution against making judgments based on people’s slogans and uses of catchwords. That happens a lot in politicking. . It’s important to look past the catchphrases and, um, terminological inexactitudes. There are “balanced trainers” who combine appetitive rewards (food, play) with aversives and compulsion; there are balanced trainers who are “softer” but do use NRMs. Keep this in mind: If you think people are someone semantically cheating or deceiving with “balanced training,” then take a good look at how people have used, or misued, “positive” in the context of dog training — and in related ways, how they shuffle the semantic deck on any number of other terms: command, correction, punishment, reward, reinforcer, compulsion, movtivational… we could compiled a thick dictionary of training terms that are twisted or confounded by trainers of all, um, ideologies.

You make a fair point Geoff and I’m already working on an article on the equally bad term “Purely Postive Training.”

From my point of view, there is a perfectly functional language out there for us to work with and it’s not laced with emotions and values. Psychology and Behavioural Science have given us all the terms we need and even defines them for us. Whether you use positive reinforcement or positive punishment, you are attempting to shape behaviour. Neither, in itself, is “right” or “wrong” to use in a given situation.

Simply call a thing what it is and explain to dog owners what the pros and cons are for using a given technique. People need to learn to use reinforcement techniques just as they need to learn to use aversive techniques in order to be effective. And sometimes the results can be equally as devastating if done poorly.

That said, in my experience you can do far more damage with “corrections” done poorly than improper reinforcement techniques. We don’t often hear about dog being sent to the shelter because they got too many treats. They usually die fat and happy….but far too young,

Thanks for your comment. It’s a timely caution to take a close look when choosing a trainer or a training approach. I agree.

As dog owners begin to question the rationale for incorporating what is sometimes, at the least unfair and at the most harsh training, some trainers find it to their advantage to put a positive spin on their methods. To make those methods sound softer, more reasonable somehow. Balanced. Sounds great. But it’s simply repackaging. Thanks again Eric for shining the spotlight on another timely issue.

[…] problem. I found such a wide variety of definitions of “balanced” dog training that I wrote an article about it to try and figure out what trainers meant by “balanced.” It turns out that most of […]

[…] problem. I found such a wide variety of definitions of “balanced” dog training that I wrote an article about it to try and figure out what trainers meant by “balanced.” It turns out that most of […]